See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: manu
<scribe> Chair: Matt, Dan, Richard
<stonematt> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017May/0003.html
matt: Anyone new to the group?
ChristopherA: It might help to re-introduce everyone for those that haven't been around for the 2 years prior.
<cwebber2> I suppose I should do an introduction, but might be easier to do so when I'm able to make the call :)
Matt: We'll add an agenda item for that next week.
Matt: Adoption of the CG docs is the next item, please lead the discussion Dan.
Dan: This is an announcement - an email went out to the mailing list about this...
<burn> email on CG doc approval: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017May/0005.html
Dan: Final intellectual property
commitments have come in, we were waiting on this before
approval. This has been approved. Adoption of the two CG docs
is approved - use cases and data model and representations.
This group can use and work with those specs going
forward.
... It's currently in process - movement of the repositories
over to our space.
Liam: Manu has asked me to do the transfer to W3C, I'll be looking into that.
ChristopherA: There were issues for Credentials CG as well - changing the Chairs.
Liam: I'm not responsible for that.
Dan: We'll continue that discussion in email.
Matt: CG documents are being moved over now - we expect those to be in the group soon.
Matt: We need to determine if we
want to publish the use cases document as a Note.
... Dan, over to you...
Dan: The main thing I think we
need to ensure that there is agreement on first is that the WG
has an intention to publish this as a WG Note. Let me
explain.
... In W3C process, there are REC-track documents and other
documents. A specification is typically Recommendation track.
Use Cases or requirements docs... those are often WG Notes -
they do not have the same bar in terms of consensus.
... If there are no objections, we can publish as a Note.
... First thing, are there any objections to publishing the Use
Cases document as a Note?
<stonematt> +1 to publish Use Case document as a Working Group Note
No objections from the group.
JoeA: You mean the current document?
Dan: Is there anyone that would object to publishing the current document as a Note?
Matt: What is the implication of publishing as a Note? Does it mean we're done?
Dan: Liam, why don't you let us know what publishing as a Note means?
Liam: The difference is that a
Recommendation is something that can be implemented and tested,
but Use Cases, Requirements, usually come out as Notes. They
don't have to go through the same set of hurdles that a REC
goes after. Like a set of stages that have to be implemented,
have to be in wide review, we can publish pretty much anything
as a Note.
... In this particular case, if this is a NOTE that's in our
charter, then we've been specifically asked to publish
that.
<liam> [verifiable claims charter - https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/charter.html]
Dan: Yes, this is a document that's mentioned in our charter. We will need to eventually publish this. In answer to your question, Matt? Is this the final version? We can publish as many Notes as we want to. We can publish an updated version at any time. It's up to us. How many of those do we wish to do?
JoeA: There are different IPR
requirements for a Note?
... The current Use Cases document doesn't match the scope of
the charter well. I think we may want to flesh out areas that
are under served.
<gkellogg> +1 to publish as a WD first, as world hasn’t seen anything from this group yet. NOTE later.
<dlongley> manu: The main reason I put myself on the queue is so the group understood that we can always update the document if we publish now, Dan said that but I want to underscore it. We can do that as a working draft and just demonstrate that we are producing stuff in the group. The first question might be ... we eventually want the use cases document to be a note and in the interim let's push it out as a working draft and say that we'll be aligning with the
<dlongley> scope of the document and then we'll refine it. I suggest we push something out there as quickly as possible with a caveat that this is a working document and we want something out there that's official from the group for people to look at. Then 2-3 months to refine. Otherwise we have a lag where group started up to 3 months in where we haven't published a doc that puts a stake in the ground on what we're working on.
<dlongley> manu: I think we should publish the use cases doc as quickly as possible with a clear marker stating it's a work in progress and that it will be a NOTE.
liam: Our charter has us
publishing these documents as FPWDs in June and then making Use
Cases into a Note in November of this year, which I think is
reasonable... publish initially as a WD.
... The mechanism for a FPWD, we get director approval to
publish it, and then after that we can auto publish it
automatically.
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to mention that publishing as FPWD has IPR commitment implications
Dan: Publishing as FPWD has IPR commitment problems that a NOTE does not. There is an IPR commitment...
Liam: You only need Director approval for first publishing... and only because of the shortname.
ChristopherA: Feels like a Working Draft would be good, feels more official, ensures "approval" has been done.
Dan: I can make proposals for the group... what we would do.
<dlongley> manu: My understanding of the process for FPWD might be wrong here, but I thought you didn't need IPR until a later stage, you just need Director approval for the short name. Then once we do that, if the track is supposed to be a NOTE we don't need to do IPR.
<liam> [ Publishing the First Public Working Draft triggers a Call for Exclusions - https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#first-wd]
<dlongley> manu: The other question is, if it does, in fact, require IPR commitment can we put out a working draft NOTE without it being a NOTE yet? Want to follow process but not trigger IPR commitment because it doesn't make sense for the use cases. Does FPWD absolutely require IPR commitment or can we say the intent is a NOTE so it doesn't require it?
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask if FPWD requires any sort of IPR commitment?
Liam: Publishing a FPWD as a Note does trigger patent policy, the way in which it's triggered ... people have 30 days to say they have a patent in this area. It's unlikely that this happens here, but good for it to happen sooner than later. It's an exclusion opportunity.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to prefer patent commitment.
<dlongley> manu: +1 from DB to publish as an FPWD to trigger a patent commitment for the use cases document even though we think we won't need it
<ChristopherA> +1
Liam: FPWD does trigger patent commitment.
<burn> PROPOSED: Publish the current UC document as a FPWD
<gkellogg> +1
manu: +1
<JoeAndrieu> +1
<Rob_Trainer> +1
<ChristopherA> +1
<stonematt> stone +1
<dlongley> +1
<JohnTib> +1
<burn> +1
<liam> +1
<RichardV> +1
<colleen> +1
adamMigus: +1
RESOLUTION: Publish the current UC document as a FPWD
<adamkcooper> +1
<cwebber2> +1
<burn> ACTION: UC editors to prepare document for publication [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/05/23-vcwg-minutes.html#action01]
Dan: That's an action on the
Editors to prepare the document for publication as a
FPWD.
... We'll handle that offline via email.
... Once the Github repository is moved over, I'd like to
continue going through issues and PRs.
... We'll continue working on this document, obviously.
... Any questions/comments on use cases document?
No questions/comments.
Dan: It's very clear that the data model document should be published as a FPWD, so what I'm going to propose to publish the data model doc as a FPWD.
<nage> +1 on including clarifying changes
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to be concerned about FPWD publication
<dlongley> manu: Slight bit of concern about doing an FPWD, I'm wondering if the group would like to hold off for a month. DB would like to make some clarifying changes to the document. There have been a number of discussions over the last couple of months and haven't had time to hammer things out in the spec. Publishing too early might create problems for those of us talking about this stuff. We don't want to block publishing as an FPWD. So maybe timebox and say
<dlongley> whatever high priority changes get into it over the next month and we publish in a month. So we don't have discussions about this endlessly. I know DB wants to make clarifying changes to the spec in the hope that when people pick up the FPWD it will align with current thinking more than the current spec does.
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to point out that document may be missing key parts
Dan: I agree with Manu
... One of my concerns is that we linger before getting out a
FPWD.
... There may be key parts missing... any major aspects to what
we expect to happen, it might be worthwhile to just get that
section in there.
<dlongley> +1 to Dan that there may be missing parts and getting sections in there with TBD
Dan: The reason for that is that
when people pickup the document to do patent exclusions, they
can see that we'll be working on something.
... Any other questions/comments?
... I heard arguments in favor of waiting a month. Eventually
the Chairs can become hard nosed about dates/deadlines. We will
ask this question again in one month.
... We will do that approximately a month from today. 3rd week
of June.
Matt: If we're waiting for the
docs to get to github, when will that be complete?
... When can we start working in earnest?
Dan: Liam, what can you commit to?
Liam: Getting repository switched over - that should happen today.
Matt: That's the blocking item
for moving forward.
... It falls to the editors to put in a review of changes/PRs,
let's try to get those clarifications/additions resolved. So in
3 weeks time we're ready to publish.
<dlongley> manu: Yes, that sounds good.
Dan: When we get the notification from Liam that it's been moved, would you be willing to create an FPWD label in Github? Anyone that has something that MUST be addressed before FPWD, attach that label to that issue/PR
<dlongley> manu: Dan, would you be averse to using a Github milestone to do that? FPWD is a milestone we're trying to hit and you can assign issues to a milestone, instead of a label, is there a preference?
<dlongley> Dan: Let's discuss offline, it's an administrative thing.
<dlongley> manu: Sounds good.
Matt: Any other questions/concerns?
None
Matt: We're planning to ensure we can meet in September if possible.
<ChristopherA> September is a bit too close to Oct-3-5 for #RebootingWEbOfTrust in Boston
Matt: We're trying to find a time
in September that works for all 3 Chairs.
... This is an active discussion, we need feedback from the
group. Urgency? Is waiting until TPAC an OK plan to have?
ChristopherA: There really isn't time during RWoT for a meeting per-se... i'd certainly invite participation from this group- day before or after... Monday/Friday are available if you'd like to participate.
Matt: What are the dates for RWoT5?
ChristopherA: Oct 3-5 in
Boston
... There wouldn't be any difficult in finding a venue.
Matt: That's one potential F2F
meeting we're tracking... that may be a convenient venue.
... We're probably going to have our first official F2F at W3C
TPAC, unless there are objections?
<RichardV> I will be out of the country for the first week in Oct.
No objections.
Dan: I think that's fine, I
wanted to clarify - there is no time in September that will
work for all 3 Chairs... so it's really late August, or wait
until TPAC.
... Maybe we can tack onto another meeting. We thought about
RWoT5, but having official meeting there one month before TPAC
probably wouldn't be good.
... That's more of a clarification to the minutes.
<burn> ack
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to clarify that Sep won't work for the chairs. We are looking at late Aug
ChristopherA: I know a lot of folks here will be in the Credentials CG - I want to make sure we are not picking up work items that are not better suited for this group.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note schema.org coordination.
<ChristopherA> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W0r6TOaJXGcDP4qOzOIEfSymub4nRSLrBmtBqyDf06I/edit#
<ChristopherA> This is the initial draft of a possible working items list for the Credentials CG
<dlongley> manu: Two things, Christopher, would you mind putting a link to the google doc for the work items if you have it? It's something this WG should review in the future. The second is the schema.org vocab coordination. We're going to be creating some kind of vocabulary (CS definition of that work, machine readable vocab), so things like expiration, who issued something, things of that nature. We may want to have an official coordination initiative to get this
<dlongley> into schema.org. So anyone can automatically get this stuff onto websites. Anyone using schema.org on their website will get indexed by search engines. If you search for recipes or whatever on search engines you get cards that show up with all of the information, it's the fastest way to get information to people. It puts us into the slipstream of success so that VCs can be consumed by search engines, etc. We have to work on vocab anyway, but we may want
<dlongley> to tack on ensuring it's integrated into schema.org as a work item for this group. There are people in this group who have been successful in getting things into schema.org, not a heavy lift but something to be aware of.
Matt: Anything else before we switch over to the CG Meeting?
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/is everyone OK with us/are there any objections to/ Succeeded: s/commiment/commitment/ Succeeded: s/Dan: Let's talk about timeline before we do anything wrt. schema.org// Succeeded: s/Manu: Got it, will do.// Succeeded: s/some good news, assuming Evan Prodromou signs off on it, looks like my conflict with this call will be resolved// Succeeded: s/(wasn't on the call, so we just need to check with him)// Succeeded: s/I'm on twice// WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Daniel_Burnett, Liam_Quin, Rob_Trainer, John_Tibbetts, Colleen, Adam_Migus, Joe_Andrieu, Matt_Stone, Nathan_George, ChrisWebber(irc), Manu, Dave_Longley, ChristopherA) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ Daniel_Burnett, Liam_Quin, Rob_Trainer, John_Tibbetts, Colleen, Adam_Migus, Joe_Andrieu, Matt_Stone, Nathan_George, ChrisWebber(irc), Manu, Dave_Longley Present: Adam_Migus ChrisWebber(irc) Daniel_Burnett Dave_Longley Joe_Andrieu John_Tibbetts Liam_Quin Manu Matt_Stone Nathan_George Richard_Varn Rob_Trainer Colleen_Kennedy Found Scribe: manu Inferring ScribeNick: manu Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017May/0003.html Got date from IRC log name: 23 May 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/05/23-vcwg-minutes.html People with action items: editors uc WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]